Taildog / SRAAM / ASRAAM family

Last edited:
Does anyone know the dimensions of the SRAAM/Taildog twin launch cannister? I'm hoping to persuade a friend to make me a 3D model of one suitable for 3d-printing, but there's not a lot out there on it.

Perhaps you could approach BAe and ask them if they would supply the relevant details.
I should love to, that sounds like excellent advice! Not to reveal myself for the crushingly stupid imbecile that I am, but is there a division or department of BAe I should be emailing or otherwise contacting?
 
Poles moving forwards with Nara Malew...18th Mechanised Division

Translation of Text in tweet:

"At the training ground in Ustka, specialist training is underway for the operators of the "Mała Narew" system batteries from the 18th Anti-Aircraft Regiment from Zamość. The training is conducted with the participation of the Air Force aviation and engineers from the Polish and British defense industries."

View: https://twitter.com/Zelazna_Dywizja/status/1593233874888568833
 
I'd contact the Bristol museum instead of BAES. Maybe a volunteer could measure it for you, or arrange for you to go and do it yourself.
 
I tried contacting the Bristol museum a few times over this, but never got an answer. The launcher is not on display in the museum. It may be in storage, or they may have sold or scrapped it when the museum moved into its new premises.
 

Land Precision Strike

Land Precision Strike (LPS) responds to the emerging artillery need to defeat high-value targets in the deep battle; targets which may be relocatable and fleeting in nature. So achieving a disproportional operational effect on the adversary.

MBDA is working closely with MOD stakeholders on LPS weapon system concepts that will offer land commanders a step change in capability against armour at range – achieving highly discriminate, highly precise and low collateral effects for both peer and sub-peer conflicts. The plan is to be able to fire the LPS missile from a range of launchers including M270 MLRS, satisfying MOD’s “one platform, many weapons” objective.

Having a look at Think Defence's article on Exactor and noticed he'd put a link in to the Royal Artillery's house magazine 'The Gunner' September 2021 issue.

https://www.thegunners.org.uk/uploads/Gnr Sep 21_interactive_version.pdf

The below is from the introduction from Major General Bennett, the Regimental Colonel Commandant of the Royal Artillery. My highlights in Bold. These stick out somewhat in relation to M270 and MBDA LPS, and CAMM-ER/MR.

"There will be a new medium range contingent air defence capability as well as investment in counter UAS/ drones and Short-Range Air Defence (SHORAD); and renewing the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) so it can fire both further and quicker while aligning it with the replacement for Exactor;"

The first bit confirms that CAMM-ER (and/or potentially the UK/Polish CAMM-MR) is in the frame for the Land Ceptor units. This was previously stated by the Commander of 7 Air Defence Regt.

The second bolded part is around the upgrade for the UK's M270 from B1 standard to A2. Further range will come from GLMLRS-ER and PrSM rockets. Presumably the quicker part is in relation to faster engagements as a result of the upgraded fire control and battle management systems and software onboard the A2 (which are from HIMARS). The end of the bolded sentence however does give some hope that MBDA LPS is not just a manufacturers fever dream and that it is based on some early thoughts and requirements from the customer. Since this was written in 2021 I can only imagine, given the events in Ukraine, that the utility of such a system has only become clearer and more urgent. It's the first time I've seen replacement of Exactor (Exactor 2, the UK's Spike NLOS systems) specifically mentioned, previously sustaining in service has been used in relation to it, although its been obvious that it would happen at some point due to a lack of further orders/impetus to move to a vehicle based solution. It of course also directly links M270 and Exactor like capability, which is LPS. It looks like LPS is firmly targeted at the Royal Artillery, with Brimstone targeted at Armour, Mech Infantry and Cavalry. The implication from the timeframes part could be that when the M270 fleet is upgraded to A2 standard, which will take some time, the Exactor 2 will be looking to be retired and replaced with LPS, which could mean some preliminary movement soon...it 'should' be a low-risk development...the UK's stated aim of doubling the number of M270 units also points to replacement of the trailer based Exactor 2 with M270 units.
 
Last edited:
Think Defence has done one of his excellent and very through write ups of Land Precision Strike...also includes some detail on UK M270 developments...if you've not had a look at Think Defence's site its well worth a very long detour through....the UK Complex Weapons write ups remain the best online resource regarding them. The engineering, container, pallet stuff is also very good....

 
Bugger....that means I need to change the Asraam history chart again....

I'll put the M270 detail over there as well...

Add in MBDA's proposed JFS-M missile for use in M270/HiMARS, and the UK's desire to increase its M270 holdings by 50-100% that came out today and it looks like its the platform to be involved in for the future, hardly surprising given its war winning success from GW1 onwards.

Seems like it might be time to start making a list of all the different guided weapons (proposed or realized) that can fit in the MLRS/HIMARS launcher. I think it's getting to be a long list. I know I'm missing some below:

GMLRS
ATACMS
PrSM
JFS-M (proposed)
LPS (proposed)
TSSAM (cancelled)
Apart from the Ground Launched SDB and SLAMRAAM mentioned earlier I'd completely forgotten about this one....one for the list when you get round to it...

Lockheed Martin P44.

A company funded development, very similar to LPS...no-one took them up on the offer, bet Lockheed are kicking themselves that they didn't progress it now...wonder if they'll resurrect?


g4MoTpf.jpg


JtIoQ7V.jpg


Think Defences Land Precision Strike article also has some detail around other MLRS developments, including a DSTL funded rocket borne UAV research programme...
 
Pictures of the two leading concepts for ASRAAM in early development from 'BGT - Die Geschichte eines Hochtechnologie-Unternehmens'
  • Concept A04 was by BGT and would be decided on as the basis for ASRAAM. It was preferred by BGT because it leveraged their extensive research into advanced IR seekers.
  • The H03 proposal by BAe was a less conventional Hittile (hit-to-kill missile).
IDR 1983 16 7 has some more detail on these proposals:
IDR understands that the multi-national steering committee has selected a comparatively unambitious design for ASRAAM, widely referred to as the BGT solution’ — although Bodenseewerk Gerätetechnik is at pains to point out that the design has been arrived at jointly with British Aerospace. The fact remains, however, that BAeDG was in favour of a “hittile’’ employing infra-red guidance operating in the 8-14μm band, whereas the approved design will be a proximity-fuzed weapon with a seeker operating in the 3-5μm band British Aerospace admits that the Royal Air Force is not generally in favour of a hittile, but the company is anxious that the Americans should not be given an excuse to dismiss the selected ASRAAM design as being too conservative. BAe wants a missile that it can export widely rather than a weapon that some see as merely a small step beyond late-model Sidewinders
 

Attachments

  • asraamA04.png
    asraamA04.png
    351 KB · Views: 107
  • asraamH03.png
    asraamH03.png
    362.9 KB · Views: 118
That's pretty interesting. BAe skew pitch-roll optics concept somewhat related to their later VSRAAM.

uk-bae-vsraam_1a-jpg.14586


Also in 1996, BAe Dynamics proposed a design for a Very Short Range Air to Air Missile (VSRAAM). This was much smaller and lighter than ASRAAM, coming in at 35kg. It would have a maximum range of 5km and incorporate thrust vectoring control for extremely high G manoeuvre.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty interesting. BAe skew pitch-roll optics concept somewhat related to their later VSRAAM.

uk-bae-vsraam_1a-jpg.14586


Also in 1996, BAe Dynamics proposed a design for a Very Short Range Air to Air Missile (VSRAAM). This was much smaller and lighter than ASRAAM, coming in at 35kg. It would have a maximum range of 5km and incorporate thrust vectoring control for extremely high G manoeuvre.
I've seen those diagrams before but haven't really paid to much attention to the cross section. Didn't realise there was no warhead or fuzing listed. BAe really like the Hittile concept...certainly would have helped keep the weight/size down.
 
Pictures of the two leading concepts for ASRAAM in early development from 'BGT - Die Geschichte eines Hochtechnologie-Unternehmens'
  • Concept A04 was by BGT and would be decided on as the basis for ASRAAM. It was preferred by BGT because it leveraged their extensive research into advanced IR seekers.
  • The H03 proposal by BAe was a less conventional Hittile (hit-to-kill missile).
IDR 1983 16 7 has some more detail on these proposals:
IDR understands that the multi-national steering committee has selected a comparatively unambitious design for ASRAAM, widely referred to as the BGT solution’ — although Bodenseewerk Gerätetechnik is at pains to point out that the design has been arrived at jointly with British Aerospace. The fact remains, however, that BAeDG was in favour of a “hittile’’ employing infra-red guidance operating in the 8-14μm band, whereas the approved design will be a proximity-fuzed weapon with a seeker operating in the 3-5μm band British Aerospace admits that the Royal Air Force is not generally in favour of a hittile, but the company is anxious that the Americans should not be given an excuse to dismiss the selected ASRAAM design as being too conservative. BAe wants a missile that it can export widely rather than a weapon that some see as merely a small step beyond late-model Sidewinders
Before the project was redefined what exactly were they trying to accomplish with ASRAAM vs AIM-9L/M? Was this a marginally better missile? The ASRAAM that entered service was basically a mini IR AMRAAM, but what where they thinking in the 80s?
 
Before the project was redefined what exactly were they trying to accomplish with ASRAAM vs AIM-9L/M? Was this a marginally better missile? The ASRAAM that entered service was basically a mini IR AMRAAM, but what where they thinking in the 80s?

I think this was part of the problem -- there were two dueling theories of what IR AAMs should be in this timeframe. One school was that the West needed a highly agile dogfight missile to one-up the AA-11 Archer. That's essentially IRIS-T. The other thought was that we would be better off with a missile that could engage at longer range before the shooter entered the dogfight. That's ASRAAM and Mica-IR.

AIM-9X seems to want to have it both ways.
 

British Develop Air-to-air Missile with Accurate Hit Capability
JANUARY 26 1981

Hatfield, England —British Aerospace Dynamics is developing a small, highly maneuverable air-to-air missile called Flame with a sufficiently accurate infrared guidance system to guarantee a direct hit even from a poor launch position. The company is seeking a U. S. associate.

Work to date is part of a prefeasibility study being conducted by British Aerospace Dynamics and Bodenseewerk Geratetechnik GmbH of West Germany under the air-to-air missile development agreement between the U. S., Britain, West Germany and France (AW&ST Aug. 25, 1980, p. 14).

Under terms of the memorandum of understanding signed by the four nations, the U. S. will develop an advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) and the European nations will develop the advanced short-range air-to-air missile (ASRAAM). Both missiles will be crosslicensed eventually for production on both sides of the Atlantic.

Prefeasibility ASRAAM studies are being conducted by France and jointly by Britain and West Germany. These studies are expected to be completed by the end of 1981.

Feasibility studies are expected to be completed by the end of 1982 and the goal is to select a European design for the ASRAAM and have full development completed by late 1985.

British Aerospace studies have led to two possible approaches to the new missile, both of which are now being studied with Bodenseewerk Geratetechnik and Marconi Avionics, along with proposals by that company.

The two British proposals are:

■ FAAM, or future air-to-air missile, which is a development of the earlier short-range air-to-air missile (SRAAM), and which has been under development at British Aerospace since the mid-1960s. FAAM would be a wingless missile using thrust vector control as well as aerodynamic controls and it would have a simple infrared guidance system with a large, proximity-fuzed warhead. It would be approximately the same size as the Sidewinder missile but “would be more potent,” according to Lawrence G. Evans, managing director of British Aerospace Dynamics’ Hatfield Div.

■ Flame, or fast, lightweight, agile missile, would take the opposite approach to that of FAAM. Instead of being an evolutionary improvement of the existing generation of infrared guided air-to-air missiles, it would use a different technological approach.

Requirements for the ASRAAM cover two divergent areas, which has made it difficult to design a single missile to cover all the needs envisaged, according to Stan Leek, future projects and research manager at the division.

The two areas are:

■ Combat—In this case, the pilot is on a mission to kill enemy aircraft and wants a missile that will impose minimum workload and that will have a maximum ability to be launched. Launches will have to be made under high-g conditions, with targets off the weapon’s boresight and at maximum visible range.

■ Self-protection—Pilots using the missile for self-protection usually will be on close-support or strike missions and will not have aircraft configured for air-to-air combat. They will, therefore, want a weapon that can be fired rapidly and will have a short time of flight so they can hit their attacker before they themselves are hit.

These requirements have driven British Aerospace to look seriously at the Flame concept, which would be compatible with aircraft now carrying Sidewinder-type missiles, but would enable a number of higher performance missiles to be carried on each Sidewinder station.

The ability already demonstrated by British Aerospace Dynamics to produce an infrared guidance system that can guide a missile to physically hit the target aircraft also is pushing development toward the Flame concept.
 

Attachments

  • E23EE1D5-CCFD-4690-9361-DF569C0387B3.png
    E23EE1D5-CCFD-4690-9361-DF569C0387B3.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 101
  • 21C26DD6-F9E4-4B27-8C13-0FE25A1711B5.png
    21C26DD6-F9E4-4B27-8C13-0FE25A1711B5.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 131
Last edited by a moderator:
CAMM is on a roll....

Looks like it will be fitted on the Saudi Navy's Freedom Class LCS derived Multi MIssion Surface Combatant's...not sure if that would be in place of RIM-116 or the proposed ESSM/SM2 weapons fit in Mk.41, if its the latter presumably this would include ExLS modules.

View: https://twitter.com/JointForcesNews/status/1620561365596520449?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

This was trailled a while ago in more opaque terms by Janes, they believed that CAMM, CAMM-ER, Spear and Martlet were going to be selected by Saudi (looks like all the references on users out there for Martlet are missing a couple).

 
Last edited:
Some clarification on designations. The original manufacturer project was Taildog. This was followed by SRAAM-100, which was aimed at ASR.1222, a requirement for a new short range AAM to replace AIM-9D in RAF service.

The problem with SRAAM-100 was it was considered too ambitious to meet ASR.1222 which specified a 1975 in service date. This was then replaced by SRAAM-75, which basically went with less ambitious components including less advanced seeker in order to meet the 1975 in service date.

Possible mixed buys of AIM-9L and SRAAM-75 was considered, but in the end, AIM-9L was procured, with SRAAM proceeding as a technology demonstrator.

So are SRAAM, SRAAM 75 and SRAAM 100 three distinct missiles? Or is SRAAM a generic name which covers both SRAAM 75 and SRAAM 100?

Which version of the missile was it that was test fired on the Hunter?
 
Last edited:
SRAAM was the overall program name, SRAAM-100 and SRAAM-75 were two different proposals differing in the level of technology applied. The test missiles fired were technical demonstrators fir the SRAAM program. As it was never ordered for production in either guise but continued as a technology demonstrator would suggest it is best to refer to it as SRAAM.

The advanced seeker on the AIM-132 was a British design.
 
Last edited:
Before the project was redefined what exactly were they trying to accomplish with ASRAAM vs AIM-9L/M? Was this a marginally better missile? The ASRAAM that entered service was basically a mini IR AMRAAM, but what where they thinking in the 80s?

I think this was part of the problem -- there were two dueling theories of what IR AAMs should be in this timeframe. One school was that the West needed a highly agile dogfight missile to one-up the AA-11 Archer. That's essentially IRIS-T. The other thought was that we would be better off with a missile that could engage at longer range before the shooter entered the dogfight. That's ASRAAM and Mica-IR.

AIM-9X seems to want to have it both ways.
The other aspect to remember is that ASRAAM was also intended as the only self defence missile for aircraft that didn’t have radars (Jaguars, Harriers etc.) or aircraft that radars that couldn’t be readily updated for the AMRAAM (Tornado IDS variants), and/ or don’t have spare AMRAAM capable pylons given their role/ primary air-to-ground armament.

As such the ASRAAM wasn’t just intended as an optimal dogfighting missile to complement longer range radar guided missiles but to also give mud-movers and the like the longest defensive “reach” (to comprehensively out range and out speed contemporary Soviet short range IR missiles and to be competitive/ deterrent against Soviet radar guided missiles potentially being fired in less than optimal conditions).

In this context the ASRAAM and the underlying requirements that lead to it make more sense, particularly as the AA-11 and its helmet mounted sight weren’t as well known/ understood examples of a different approach at that time. And the UK had looked at something closer to that different approach (ultra manoeuvrability, less speed and range) with prototype missiles like Taildog but decided to go the ASRAAM route instead.
 
Before the project was redefined what exactly were they trying to accomplish with ASRAAM vs AIM-9L/M? Was this a marginally better missile? The ASRAAM that entered service was basically a mini IR AMRAAM, but what where they thinking in the 80s?

I think this was part of the problem -- there were two dueling theories of what IR AAMs should be in this timeframe. One school was that the West needed a highly agile dogfight missile to one-up the AA-11 Archer. That's essentially IRIS-T. The other thought was that we would be better off with a missile that could engage at longer range before the shooter entered the dogfight. That's ASRAAM and Mica-IR.

AIM-9X seems to want to have it both ways.
The other aspect to remember is that ASRAAM was also intended as the only self defence missile for aircraft that didn’t have radars (Jaguars, Harriers etc.) or aircraft that radars that couldn’t be readily updated for the AMRAAM (Tornado IDS variants), and/ or don’t have spare AMRAAM capable pylons given their role/ primary air-to-ground armament.

As such the ASRAAM wasn’t just intended as an optimal dogfighting missile to complement longer range radar guided missiles but to also give mud-movers and the like the longest defensive “reach” (to comprehensively out range and out speed contemporary Soviet short range IR missiles and to be competitive/ deterrent against Soviet radar guided missiles potentially being fired in less than optimal conditions).

In this context the ASRAAM and the underlying requirements that lead to it make more sense, particularly as the AA-11 and its helmet mounted sight weren’t as well known/ understood examples of a different approach at that time. And the UK had looked at something closer to that different approach (ultra manoeuvrability, less speed and range) with prototype missiles like Taildog but decided to go the ASRAAM route instead.
Given combat experience over the last 30 years involving 'WVR' missiles its very hard to conclude anything other than that the UK got it perfectly correct with the Asraam approach.....the Ukrainian's aren't crying out for super manoeuverability and shorter range....and I can't recall any air combat in the last 45 years where it was the right approach (possibly the only time is between Ethiopian and Eritrean jets, but that was mainly due to the failures of longer range AAM's).
 
Before the project was redefined what exactly were they trying to accomplish with ASRAAM vs AIM-9L/M? Was this a marginally better missile? The ASRAAM that entered service was basically a mini IR AMRAAM, but what where they thinking in the 80s?

I think this was part of the problem -- there were two dueling theories of what IR AAMs should be in this timeframe. One school was that the West needed a highly agile dogfight missile to one-up the AA-11 Archer. That's essentially IRIS-T. The other thought was that we would be better off with a missile that could engage at longer range before the shooter entered the dogfight. That's ASRAAM and Mica-IR.

AIM-9X seems to want to have it both ways.
The other aspect to remember is that ASRAAM was also intended as the only self defence missile for aircraft that didn’t have radars (Jaguars, Harriers etc.) or aircraft that radars that couldn’t be readily updated for the AMRAAM (Tornado IDS variants), and/ or don’t have spare AMRAAM capable pylons given their role/ primary air-to-ground armament.

As such the ASRAAM wasn’t just intended as an optimal dogfighting missile to complement longer range radar guided missiles but to also give mud-movers and the like the longest defensive “reach” (to comprehensively out range and out speed contemporary Soviet short range IR missiles and to be competitive/ deterrent against Soviet radar guided missiles potentially being fired in less than optimal conditions).

In this context the ASRAAM and the underlying requirements that lead to it make more sense, particularly as the AA-11 and its helmet mounted sight weren’t as well known/ understood examples of a different approach at that time. And the UK had looked at something closer to that different approach (ultra manoeuvrability, less speed and range) with prototype missiles like Taildog but decided to go the ASRAAM route instead.
Given combat experience over the last 30 years involving 'WVR' missiles its very hard to conclude anything other than that the UK got it perfectly correct with the Asraam approach.....the Ukrainian's aren't crying out for super manoeuverability and shorter range....and I can't recall any air combat in the last 45 years where it was the right approach (possibly the only time is between Ethiopian and Eritrean jets, but that was mainly due to the failures of longer range AAM's).
If you compare associated production numbers and sales that’s not really the full picture that emerges as the ASRAAM has historically struggled against the AIM-9X and to a lesser extent the IRIS-T.
There has been some relatively recent improvement in this regard with some of the more recent Eurofighter operators going for the ASRAAM, plus the Indian deal that should be significant but (like a lot of Indian procurement programs) seems to be proceeding in very slow motion (any delivered yet?).

Most Eurofighter operators went for the IRIS-T instead and (apart from the India deal) the only non-Eurofighter operator of the ASRAAM was Australia for their upgraded F/A-18A/Bs; Australia pointedly stuck with the AIM-9Xs for their Super Hornets and F-35s.

The primary issue is the predominance/ primacy of the MRAAM class of missile (primarily AMRAAM, plus now Meteor).
These are the dominant class of air to air missile - having the best version and war load of these is seen as the most critical aspect of your missile armament. Closer-in IR missiles are seen as the lower priority fall-back if-you-absolutely-have-to missile armament, the less important complement to MRAAMs.

In that context the ASRAAM arguably makes less sense than when it was being originally created - the AMRAAM or Meteor are better at what the ASRAAM really excels at (speed, range) versus the AIM-9X and IRIS-T while their strengths (off the rail agility) versus the MRAAMs are more contrasting and in that sense more complementary. Though that generalisation probably under sells the ASRAAMs agility. It is notable that the India deal primarily relates to their Jaguars (most have no radar so no MRAAM to compliment), one of the relatively few instances where the aircraft in question don’t have MRAAM capabilities.

There are arguments pro- the ASRAAM like it’s greater speed versus it’s competitors reducing the chance of mutual kills (killing an opponent before they fire a missile that ends up killing you). However it appears to have lost out as much on cost/ convenience (operators mostly sticking with already integrated and cheaper AIM-9x rather than additional hassle of effort/ cost to integrate ASRAAM) when it appears that the differences versus its competition are seen as somewhat marginal.

Hence the reason for the relative lack of success of the ASRAAM may not primarily rest in philosophical differences of approach but the relative decline in importance of that class of missile driving a “least hassle option” selection bias.
 
Last edited:
If you compare associated production numbers and sales that’s not really the full picture that emerges as the ASRAAM has historically struggled against the AIM-9X and to a lesser extent the IRIS-T.
What I'm saying is that Asraam adopted the best approach for modern combat. The R-73 panic (and there were industrial/political reasons as well) led to 2 approaches. Make a better R-73 (IRIS-T)...or just kill them before they get in R-73 range (Asraam). 9X is the US going for a local solution...neither fish nor fowl, with urgent development to try and extend its range to make it more effective.

There has been some relatively recent improvement in this regard with some of the more recent Eurofighter operators going for the ASRAAM, plus the Indian deal that should be significant but (like a lot of Indian procurement programs) seems to be proceeding in very slow motion (any delivered yet?).
ITAR....US blocking deals, but then selling 9X with the UK developed seeker on...Asraam Block VI has cleared that hurdle, hence the recent deals with Middle East countries...

Most Eurofighter operators went for the IRIS-T instead
And deliciously 3 of them are having to buy another missile to use on F-35 (Germany, Italy and soon Spain)...yet more costs...Norway had to entirely ditch its fairly new IRIS-T when it went for F-35...

Australia pointedly stuck with the AIM-9Xs for their Super Hornets and F-35s.
Not stuck. They had to procure new. For the smaller SuperHornet buy it wasn't worth the cost of integration of Asraam.

having the best version and war load of these is seen as the most critical aspect of your missile armament.
WVR and BVR missiles rarely, if ever, share the same pylons...and if having the best version was seen as paramount....Amraam wouldn't have sold any compared to Meteor for the last 10 years, particularly as most Amraam users do not have access to the best Amraam version (D-3, which still doesn't match Meteor). Politics does come into play as well...

There are arguments pro- the ASRAAM like it’s greater speed versus it’s competitors reducing the chance of mutual kills (killing an opponent before they fire a missile that ends up killing you).

I'd argue when you're in an F-35 and carrying a WVR missile on your outer pylon you want to be killing any enemy beyond, or at least as close to, their ability to detect you with radar. Asraam is at present the only missile that can reliably do that. If you've got 9X on the rail you could be committing yourself to a fight that you don't really want i.e. fair...

However it appears to have lost out as much on cost/ convenience (operators sticking with already integrated and cheaper AIM-9x rather than additional hassle of effort/ cost to integrate ASRAAM) when it appears that the differences versus its competition are seen as somewhat marginal.

That is absolutely true. Cost plays a real part. And for the small numbers of missiles that most operators actually procure it matter a great deal. Good enough will also suit most defence ministries, particularly when you can wrap up a deal under FMS, running a legal and safe procurement, particularly in Europe, is a hugely expensive, labour intensive and lengthy affair.

For the UK its been rather good though...we get to fly around with the best WVR missile on earth, particularly in its latest Block VI form, and have got an incredibly successful surface launched missile system out of it.... and partly as a result of the entire joint programme palaver, and US duplicity, we ended up with Meteor as well, plus ensured that no UK air weapons have any US content for them to mess us around on...for the UK's missile industry its turned into an absolute godsend....possibly our most successful missile programme ever in its long term effects.
 
Some news...CAMM-ER has conducted its first representative firing test.

View: https://twitter.com/MBDAGroup/status/1654493733532979210?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


And an additional order for the Saudi's, in addition to the original c$120m deal.

View: https://twitter.com/ShephardNews/status/1656675586323140610?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


 
elmayerle said:
So was SRARM something equivalent to an advanced Sidearm (ARM derivative of AIM-9C) for air-to-ground use or was it intended for air-to-air use to make BVR-capable adversaries keep their radars off and cut any advantages their radar would give them?

Wasn't the intended target of Sidearm the radar on the ZSU 23-4 Shilka self-propelled antiaircraft gun? The intended platform for Sidearm was apparently the Marine AH-1W Cobra.
And Marine Harriers, though that does require sacrificing one of the two Sidewinder missiles for smiting a Shilka.
 
Caption at the bottom does say the image is for illustration only, so the final configuration could be different.

I think the implication of the fifth bullet is that CAMM-MR is probably a single pack in Mk 41, while the others can be quadpacked (Host-ExLS rises again...)
 
I think the implication of the fifth bullet is that CAMM-MR is probably a single pack in Mk 41, while the others can be quadpacked (Host-ExLS rises again...)
I'm actually expecting it to be quad-packable in Mk.41. I don't think they'd want to miss that data point, could make a huge difference in its utility/sales. And if ESSM can do it, I think CAMM-MR will as well.

If its actually called MR as well...it means someone is leaving the space free for an LR variant at some point as well...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom